Now that Sir Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, has defied calls to ban a pro-Palestinian march through London on Armistice Day, attention inevitably turns to what might happen on the day itself. Will there be violence? Could groups intent on causing mayhem splinter from the main protest? Will counter-protesters clash with pro-Palestinian demonstrators? How will the police maintain control of events on the ground and ensure the protest passes off peacefully?
Well down the list of questions and issues is Israel’s military campaign against Hamas in Gaza, ostensibly the reason for this weekend’s public protests. That is revealing in itself: the actual conflict is almost a side show in the angry claims and counter claims about whether the London protests should take place.
So what exactly is the point of these demonstrations then? What have they achieved beyond sowing conflict and strife? A sensible approach would have been for the organisers to agree – as a mark of respect for Armistice Day – to postpone their march this weekend. Shamefully that was never on the cards, which says much about the priorities of those behind the events. Nothing matters more – in their eyes at least – than the plight of Palestinians, combined with their own right to take to the streets of London in aid of this cause. It is an insight into their collective mindset, which sees walking through city streets carrying banners and shouting slogans as a way of life. It doesn’t matter much that this form of protest has a negligible effect on the wider public debate itself. If, for example, the point of the protests is to change government policy on the Israel-Hamas war, that is obviously a non-starter.
The protests achieve little, advance no argument, and convert no one but the already converted
Ministers, from the Prime Minister down, have made clear their opposition to the marches this weekend: Rishi Sunak described them as ‘disrespectful’. The government is hardly likely then to be particularly sympathetic to the wider arguments of the protesters. The banners of anti-Semitic hatred, flourished by a minority, only serve to offend the wider public watching on television screens.
In other words, the protests achieve little, advance no argument, and convert no one but the already converted to their ostensible cause. Would the time not be better spent emailing MPs and lawmakers? Would it not be more practical and helpful to donate to charities working in the conflict zone? Why bother marching every weekend when so little of any real worth is being achieved?
The only answer is that the demonstrators march because they can: the right to protest is an essential freedom in any democracy. It is a shame that this freedom is being abused to no great end in this case. The harm done is far greater — in particular the effect that these demonstrations have had in creating an atmosphere of fear and intimidation for Britain’s Jewish population. Is it unreasonable to point out that such demonstrations would be given short shrift by Hamas in pre-war Gaza? The marchers won’t thank you for mentioning this uncomfortable truth.
It prompts the broader question of why a subsection of the population is so mindlessly attached to mass demonstrations as a viable form of political action. Protests of this kind have become almost a way of life for those involved, with no cause deemed too big or small to attract their fury. But recent political history shows that such protests are largely futile. In 2003, almost two million people took to the streets of central London to oppose the looming war against Iraq. It was part of a global protest, involving millions of people marching in cities across the world. It completely failed. It was a huge show of public anger but left no lasting legacy.
The Gaza war demonstrations, although on a much smaller scale, will turn out to be just as irrelevant to the course of history and will do little for the cause of the Palestinians. They are merely an indulgent exercise in protest for protest’s sake.
Comments